28 June 2012 10:14 PM

Not all users of mood-altering drugs are addicts. Some use simply for transient pleasure. Some use because of peer pressure or because they think it's clever. Others - maybe ten to fifteen percent of the total population - have an addictive tendency. We can stop our addictive behaviour for a time but then we return to it.

A compulsion is not merely a habit taken to extremes.

The danger of libertarianism in drug use is that addicts do not recognise this addictive state in ourselves. We believe that our problems lie in the outside world rather than inside ourselves.

Those of us who do eventually recognise our addictive nature come to see that we cause our own difficulties and we have no right to call on other people or the State to bail us out.I was myself a board member of The Libertarian Alliance. I resigned over the issue of legalisation of drugs. I saw the immense damage caused in - and by - people who have problems with addiction. They were not free. They were trapped and, most significantly, they did not see that.

They tended to focus their attention on side issues such as the legalisation and medicinal use of cannabis. These become a cause célèbre.

They point, justifiably, to the dangers of alcohol but fail to see that cannabis is a dangerous drug in its own right, affecting mood and memory and motivation, three fundamentally valuable aspects of a positive, rational and creative life. As with alcohol and nicotine and other mood-altering drugs, cannabis is a 'gateway' drug, lowering the resistance to other addictive behaviour.

Legalisation of cannabis would be a catastrophe. Dealers would love it. They already love the legal status of alcohol. It enables them to fuel resentment over artificial divisions in the legal status of various mood-altering substances. Even more, they would love the legalisation of all drugs. Dealers and cartels want to see the social normalisation of their activities. Then, like the Mafia, they can get down to serious business.

Already the value of the illegal drug industry in the USA is estimated to be the equivalent of several of the top ten companies combined in the Fortune 500 list of the largest companies.

No government can manage the legal sale and distribution of drugs at that level without taking its focus of attention off health care, education, welfare, defence and everything else that we expect our elected representatives to provide in our society.

The pharmaceutical industry is already immense, occupying many of the top Fortune 500 places. They make their profits largely from the sale of mood-altering drugs such as tranquillisers, antidepressants and sleeping tablets. Doctors are their legalised pushers.

I left the NHS and subsequently, with my wife, created a rehabilitation centre when we recognised the sheer extent of this problem and saw that nothing of any significance was being done to understand and combat the demand, rather than supply, side of addiction problems.

I had tried to influence the NHS from within but I totally failed.

I have taken twenty five years of adulation or abuse since then. It has no effect on me other than to get me to consider where my ideas might be right or wrong, sticking to them or changing them. What matters to me is whether or not ideas work in practice.

For twenty three years, my wife and I chose not to take an income from the rehab that we created. Yet there is no shortage of people abusing me for leaving the NHS, which has no time for Twelve Step treatment ideas, based upon the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Henry Kissinger describes AA as the greatest social and spiritual movement of the twentieth century. I agree with him on that.

But, of course, the NHS is 'the envy of the world' - which is why no one in the world has copied it. Therefore, unlike the rest of us, it doesn't need to see where its ideas might be misguided or just plain wrong.

With a supplicant or even captive population, the NHS could do something about the drug problem if doctors were to be educated on the nature of addictive disease and recovery and if substantial rehabs were to be established in all prisons. Keeping drugs illegal would then ensure that addicts would get effective treatment, and idiots would get a wake-up call, if people who broke the drug laws were mandated to receive NHS Twelve Step treatment.

After that - or at the same time because the principles, and often the addicts, are the same - we can focus our attention on the problems caused specifically by addiction to nicotine, sugar and alcohol.

In view of the carnage caused by these substances (in round figures, alcohol kills one hundred people a day, sugar two hundred and nicotine three hundred, whereas all illegal drugs kill fifteen) there would be a case for making all these substances illegal. The legal problems would be immense but at least there would be consistency.

Ours is an addictive society, like many others. We are riddled with it and with rationalisations and even justifications for continuing our own form of addiction in ourselves, if not in other people. We are not all as free from these destructive drives as we might like to believe.

Some of us have been fortunate to attain that freedom on a day to day basis. We now try not to lose sight of the need of others to achieve similar freedom. By helping them, if they so wish, we help ourselves to remember where we came from.

We may not have the financial capacity to help others in significant numbers but we do have the good will, the understanding, the commitment and the patience to do so. If we are abused in the process, we make no complaint. After all, we ourselves were abusive in our time as active addicts.

It does us a lot of good to learn what it is like to be on the receiving end of abuse. We knew what it was like to dish it out. If we are to remain in continuing recovery, we have to learn how to take it. We maintain our freedom from dependency by being tolerant of the behaviour of others, even while opposing ideas that we know, from our own experience, don't work in practice.

Share this article:

26 June 2012 8:44 PM

The problem with medical knowledge is that it isn't static: it progresses. The ideas of yesterday are discarded. Former treatments are dropped. New concepts of health and disease replace previous ways of looking at things. Recommendations are modified in the light of fresh information and understanding.

It is difficult enough for doctors to keep pace with this constant change.

It is even harder for patients. When doctors ourselves become patients, we see the difficulties from both sides.

Two years ago I leaned over to pick up something. I felt a sudden snap in my lower back. I thought I had simply pulled a muscle and that the pain would resolve in time. Two weeks later it was still very much present. I could walk only fifty or so short paces without having to sit down. Carrying even a light shopping bag or my laptop was very painful.

In Kent, I asked for medical help in an Accident and Emergency department and was seen by a triage nurse who diagnosed a slipped disc and recommended Paracetamol. She explained that she did not have the authority to ask for a scan.

I knew that her diagnosis was wrong because I had no pain down my legs. I went to another hospital, a teaching hospital in London, and was seen by another nurse. She could see how much pain I was in when I was simply trying to get undressed. She also had no authority to ask for a scan but she referred me to a specialist who did.

Ultimately, a week later, a scan showed that I had an acute collapse fracture of my second lumbar vertebra as a result of osteoporosis (a spontaneous fracture of the spine from thinning of the bones).

I was given tablets to strengthen my bones and I was given calcium supplements in tablet form even though I have always eaten lots of wholemeal bread and plenty of cheese. I also drink lots of milk and I eat lots of fruit and plenty of green vegetables. I do not drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. I keep myself fit. In other words, I have practised what I preached - but it did me no good. I still got the osteoporosis that my mother had.

One year ago I was given an intravenous injection of a drug to toughen up my bones even further. I'm due for another. Now I read in the papers that the calcium supplements that I have been taking, on specialist advice, will double my risk of a heart attack or stroke.

What should I do now? I am very happy to ask for advice rather than treat myself (which I can't anyway because I choose not to work as a doctor nowadays). But what is the correct path to follow?

Do I stop the supplements and risk another fracture? There is a belief that calcium supplements don't help anyway and that diet is sufficient, although it clearly wasn't for me.

What I do know - because I did it twice last week - is that I can now walk a couple of miles without any pain. Time and the injection have done wonders. However, it will be boring if I now have a heart attack.

Can I just stop the calcium supplements provided that I continue to take Vitamin D tablets? What will happen then? Should I risk my marital harmony by eating a tin of sardines every day, as I used to until the smell became too off-putting, or will that give me kidney stones again?

As a former doctor, I understand the clinical predicament. There is no absolute answer that fits every patient. When I go for the follow-up injection next month, I shall simply ask the specialist for her advice and then I shall follow it. I am aware that her advice may be different from last year and that it may be different again next year. That's the way it goes.

I'm glad not to have to make those recommendations for other people any more. The pace of change in clinical practice is incredibly fast.

So I shall take my place in the queue alongside the other patients, do what is suggested for me and then get on with life.

Share this article:

24 June 2012 7:56 PM

Like anyone else in the private sector, I had to discover for myself where my my own skills lie. The feather bed of the State protects and enshrines ineptitude and incompetence.As an NHS GP I created a large group practice. There was no great skill in that. Patients came from the patient tree. Our income was guaranteed.

However, my partners and I would have earned a lot more if we had spent less on clinical and administrative services to our patients. We were financially penalised by the State for trying to do good quality work with good quality staff in good quality premises.

In the fully private sector, I had to compete with other doctors. My patients had to pay the full cost of all prescriptions on top of my consultation fee. I would have gone to the wall if I did not provide a better service than they could get for free in the NHS.

In my fully private rehab, patients would sometimes say that they had 'an NHS bed' when I had given them a free place. They had an ingrained sense of entitlement. Personal gratitude was an alien concept for many of them. In a one-way arrangement, they demanded my private services by right.

By contrast, many patients who paid the full fee often expressed great appreciation for what they had received and for the new opportunities they had been given to turn their lives around.

When I was totally dependent upon income earned from patients, and had no guaranteed salary whatever, I would frequently be abused for not working for the State. The demand was that my organisation should have provided free care for all patients in need. How could I do that when I do not have the power to levy taxes?

In a statist society, that attitude is very common, even in people who expect to be paid, privately or by the State, for every one of their own professional actions. In twenty three years, my wife and I took no personal income from our rehab, although our expenses were covered. That was our personal choice. Eventually it bankrupted us or, rather, I myself bankrupted us by not supervising the financial aspects of the business. This is the reality of the private sector - and so it should be.

Nowadays I take no significant risk because I rent my one consulting room and I employ no staff. I no longer provide care for large numbers of people. In my specialist counselling work, I focus my attention on building on my previous experience and generating new ideas. I am constantly looking for new approaches.

Recently, along with six thousand other people, the vast majority of whom run their own businesses, I attended a four day intensive therapeutic and educational programme run by Anthony Robbins, the expert in personal change.

I did not warm to him initially but I came progressively to appreciate his skill. Also I respect his evident compassion and commitment, although I am put off by his rank commercialism and I don't agree with his ideas on vegetarianism or his approach to physical fitness.Even so, I totally support his rejection of the use of mood-altering drugs, recreational or prescribed. He tries his way of helping people to do without them. So do I.

That much, if little else, we have in common. For that, I respect him, even though I am wary of his techniques that, to my mind, border on indoctrination. I prefer to make my decisions in quiet on my own, rather than in 'peak' state in the company of thousands of other people. I believe my gentle reflections have more chance of my long-term adherence. Mass hysteria doesn't do it for me. My energy and enthusiasm are independent of other people's encouragement or exhortation. They go with me.

When six thousand people shouted in unison 'I am a leader', I thought of the multitudinous throng responding to Monty Python's Brian by saying 'Yes! We're all individuals' - except the one who said 'I'm not'.

By contrast with my professional respect for Anthony Robbins, despite my reservations, I do not respect clinicians who are so indoctrinated and hide-bound by standard therapeutic approaches that they do not observe that they are creating zombies out of their patients.

They may have many professional qualifications, and may even have prestigious appointments and even NHS merit awards, but no apparent or actual fundamental commitment to caring for patients.

Rather than dismiss Anthony Robbins, as many do (I was present at a psychology conference in Anaheim, California when an attempt was made to throw him out), these distinguished pundits could learn at least one personal quality from him. He may be an actor but his is a quality act and his heart is in the right place. On that basis alone, he merits the massive influence that he has.

Share this article:

20 June 2012 9:41 PM

Doctors who take industrial action on a matter of principle will be paid £430 for the day.

Some principle!

I was away from work for the day yesterday. I earned nothing at all, not a bean.

That's the real world in the private sector. I still have to pay my rent and all my other expenses, including paying my taxes that go, in part, towards supporting the state sector.

Clearly the entitlement culture, based upon self-pity and blame, has now affected some members of the medical profession, led by the British Medical Association.

I remember the days when the BMA considered itself to be a professional association. Barbara Castle, the Minister of Health, said that it was a trade union like any other. Events and the passage of time have proved her to be absolutely right.

In a former cabinet office Barbara Castle had produced a paper called 'In place of strife'. Her hope was to produce harmonious working relationships in industry. The Trade Unions howled her down. She sold out her principle to appease The Labour Party paymasters.

I wonder how many of the refusenik doctors will refuse the £430 on a matter of principle.

There have been times in my life when having ten thousand pounds would make little difference. At other times, having just ten more pounds would have made a real difference. I have learned from these opposite experiences.

There are at least three things that I no longer want:

I do not want to run a major enterprise or employ any staff.

I do not want to own anything or to owe anything.

I do not want any more children, nor to give more to, or be at any time dependent upon, my existing children.

Shorn of these three wants, I live very comfortably within my needs. I am fortunate in being able to earn my living and pay my way.

I have been told that I can ask to return to the Church of England almshouse, in which I lived three years ago, if I ever need to do so in future.

I am emotionally and financially secure because my wants are in balance with my needs and my creative capacity. I focus now on living life to the full, within my means.

That said, I am very privileged in many ways, particularly as a result of marrying Pat two years after the death of Margaret.

Many people have been very kind to me but Pat most of all. My prime goal is to bring as much happiness to her life as she brings to mine.

In my work as a counsellor, I have the same stimulus as before. I do miss training staff, running group therapy sessions and giving lectures to patients and their families. But I am delighted to be rid of the chore of annual reappraisal by the General Medical Council, supervision by the Care Quality Commission and the pontificating 'guidance' of NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

These official and officious organisations offer help that is indistinguishable from hindrance.

Nowadays I rent, rather than buy, property. I can move on from it with no hassle at any time that I choose.

I own nothing other than my desk and wing back chair, some sofa beds and side tables, an electronic piano and some pictures and books. What else would I really need? In central London, certainly not a car.

I have no overdraft or loans. Nobody can chase me for anything. I have owned and owed for over fifty years. Now I don't and that is wonderfully relaxing. I'm free.

I have been supportive of my children but I am not convinced that my help was beneficial. My children have children, and I enjoy spending time with them, but I do not acknowledge the concept of needing to be supportive of grandchildren.

I think they will do best in life by learning to fend for themselves, as I have done.

For the first time in my life, my own financial state and the future of our national economy hold no fears for me.

My recommendation to other natural entrepreneurs is to follow this guideline:

Go liquid if you can. Cash is king.

Put your wants on hold. This is a different world from the one we knew.

Don't believe assurances from politicians that the economy will improve. It won't in the next decade.

Share this article:

13 June 2012 3:49 PM

I have a mortal dread of being championed by The Health Ombudsman. If that were to happen, I would believe - for the first time in my life - that I need medical help purely because of my age. His report last year accused the NHS of failing to meet 'even the most basic standards of care' for patients over the age of 50.

Now the government Care Minister, Paul Burstow, says that doctors will be banned from denying treatment to older patients on the grounds of age. So now I am to be given pills and potions, poultices, panaceas and painful procedures or palliation along with pious patronising poppycock and pathetically puerile platitudes. It's enough to make me puke.

I intend to take my revenge in the only way available to me. I intend to live my life to the full and enjoy every minute of it, bankrupting the NHS all on my own as I get older and older.

My mother died at 93. My father died at 96. At 75, I'm in a lot better shape than they were at my age. I'm fitter in body and sharper in mind. Now I can set about becoming immortal at the expense of the State. My grandchildren, and maybe my great grandchildren, can be taxed into penury to pay for my longevity and lingering decrepitude.

You think I jest? Hear this....

I watched my mother, taken from a peaceful death from pneumonia in her nursing home, and put into hospital where tubes were inserted into her every orifice. She died in pain, lonely and petrified. If doctors attempt to give me similar treatment, I shall tell them to p*** off.

12 June 2012 11:15 AM

As the national economy dives further into the mire, the bookies, pawnbrokers and pay-day loan sharks rub their grubby hands in glee.

Successful businessmen know that turnover is vanity and profit is sanity but cash flow is the only reality. Debts that cannot be paid on demand bring disaster, regardless of wealth on paper. The true value of any asset at any time is what it will sell for in a stressed market right now, this minute.

People who do not have savings have to pawn their readily disposable assets. The family silver, or someone else's family silver that they have stolen, goes into hock.

Or they borrow immediately available money, at usurious rates, against the promise of repayment on pay-day.

Or they place a bet with the bookies in the high street or on-line. If they have no occupational pay-day, because they are unemployed, they may spend some of their Social Security money on a desperate gamble as the only way they can see to escape from their financial plight.

Almost all lose. Of course they do. Otherwise the pawnbrokers, the loan sharks and the bookies (what a friendly, homely term that is!) would themselves go bust.

What the bookies ('turf accountants' is a ludicrous quasi-respectable term for a shameful trade that plays mostly on the most vulnerable members of society) crave is for someone to have a really big, well-publicised, win. Then dupes believe that they too can beat the odds and get rich quick without having to work for their money. Lotteries involve the same scam. The National Lottery is primarily a government tax on poor people.

Stocks and shares, insurance schemes, hedge funds and other 'financial instruments' are also naked gambling dressed up with a thin veneer of respectability. Our whole society is riddled with an addiction to gambling.

At the top end of the economic scale are people who, initially, can afford to lose. But even they often lose everything eventually. They cannot buck the system indefinitely. Only governments can do that through 'quantitative easing' - printing more money and thereby de-valuing people's hard-earned savings. They penalise the prudent in order to pay for their own profligacy.

With this despicable example from the elected leaders of our society, it is small wonder that our high streets are being vandalised by a 'grab it and run' morality led by the banks.

Share this article:

11 June 2012 12:50 AM

Appointments with a GP are vital to healthcare. 9 out of 10 patients say they are dissatisfied with the system.

As a country, we get the doctors and the medical services, and also the medical and national politicians, that we deserve.

If a sufficient number of people believe that they have rights and deserts, rather than responsibilities and duties, the inevitable result is the creation of a dependency culture. Politicians promise it. The electors vote for it. Then we are stuck with it.

Attempting to turn the clock back and withdraw benefits, to which people have become accustomed, is well nigh impossible.

Politicians tend not to be elected on a pledge to withdraw services. People will vote for a reduction in government expenditure only in so far as they themselves are not affected by it. They always want more for themselves.

The last government gave GPs a new contract that promised more pay for less work. The British Medical Association, like any other trade union, demanded it and the Labour government gave it to them. This gravy train for NHS doctors brought disastrous consequences to services for patients. 'Out of hours' work was no longer to be expected of GPs. They could delegate it to agencies - and most of them did.

Now, in a recent survey, patients are complaining about the difficulty in getting appointments within normal 'nine to five' working hours. Further, they complain that they cannot get office consultations outside their own working hours.

Doctors themselves have joined the entitlement culture, as will be seen on 21st June in their industrial action to protect their pensions. It is this same attitude that leads to doctors seeing no reason why they should provide services that differ, in public access, from that of any other government employees (even though each NHS GP technically contracts individually with the government for his or her services).

In this respect of comparability of the demands of state employees, doctors are no more concerned about NHS services than Bob Crow is over public transport services. Public service employees are nowadays more concerned for services for themselves.

That is what they vote for in strike action. They compare themselves with each other, rather than with their counterparts in the private sector.

NHS doctors who try to enter the full-time private sector often fail to survive in that competitive environment. They have to crawl back to the safety and security of the Nanny State.

They failed to understand that the three As of private practice are Availability, Affability and Ability. Private doctors have to be available at any time, they have to be polite and they have to polish their clinical skills. Otherwise they go out of business and deserve to do so.

NHS doctors, like other State employees, may well have these attributes as individuals but there is no significant sanction if they do not.

If the electorate votes for state services, this is the inevitable consequence right across the board. We see this in educational services just as much as in healthcare.

Patients want NHS doctors to provide services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and to have the right to see the same doctor every time, in home visits as well as in the doctor's office.

That can't be done universally in a state system. Even in the private sector we have to have a break some time, although my wife knew that she married my telephone as well as me.

That was true for me even when I worked full time in the NHS. It may well be true for some NHS doctors today. That is their choice, as it was mine, but it is a different matter when patients demand a service that they would be unlikely to provide to consumers of their own services.

That is the entitlement culture that we live in nowadays and the situation will deteriorate even further until we recognise that we are no different from the Greeks, or other southern Europeans, in the expectation of something for nothing in state services. Nor will the financial, social and political consequences differ in this economic never-never-land.

The future of NHS GP services can be predicted already: a majority of part-time, mainly Asian, women doctors working in large polyclinics with 30 or more doctors working in shifts. That may or may not be what the public want but that is what they will get when they vote for state services.

Share this article:

08 June 2012 12:06 PM

Adding exercise to conventional treatment for depression - antidepressant drugs and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy - does not improve the outcome. So says the National Institute for Health in an NHS funded research study published in The British Medical Journal. Nor would adding anything else once antidepressants are locked into the mood centres of the brain.The prime purpose of prescribing antidepressants is to enable doctors to avoid being blamed for patients' suicides. However, the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depression is only slightly greater than placebo (tablets that have no active ingredient). If doctors do not follow the herd in prescribing drugs and CBT, they risk being blamed by coroners or by the General Medical Council when patients kill themselves. If they do follow conventional practice, they will not be blamed. They will be said to have done the best they could do. And if so-called 'antidepressants' actually increase the risk of suicide, nobody would ever know. The patients die but the prescribing doctors can sleep easy.In my rehab I treated over five thousand in-patients who had tried to 'treat' their own sense of desperate inner emptiness with alcohol or recreational drugs or food or gambling or all sorts of things. These 'treatments' worked for a time but then the effects wore off so they used them again. In time they became dependent upon these mood-altering substances and processes. When they tried to give them up they developed a crashing depression again. That does not mean that these 'treatments' should be continued, with or without other therapies being added in. It means that something entirely different, such as the Twelve Step programme first formulated by Alcoholics Anonymous, should be tried. Exactly the same principle applies to the most pernicious of all 'designer' drugs - antidepressants.Of course some people feel better on them. This is largely a placebo effect: they feel better when their problems are medicalised and they are free from responsibility for sorting out their own lives. They may have been overwhelmed by personal problems and by an incapacity to get their heads focussed upon anything other than misery. As with recreational drug users, they feel absolutely desperate when their drugs - antidepressants - are discontinued. But this does not necessarily mean that the drugs worked or that they should be continued. It could mean that something entirely different should be tried, preferably something that would be more effective and not lead to a dependency.Doctors generally believe that antidepressants are not addictive. I fundamentally disagree. Patients do not usually crave for an increase in the dose but they have dreadful withdrawal effects. Coming off them has to be done very carefully and gradually over a period of weeks rather than days - and a behavioural programme, such as The Twelve Steps, has to take their place.I doubt that exercise on its own would be sufficient to treat a full-blown depressive illness but it can be a helpful adjunct. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is an excellent treatment for people who grapple with confusing issues but not for those with any significant emotional problem.Obviously, each patient is unique and must follow the advice of his or her own doctor. All I can say is that, when I was a working doctor, I did not initiate prescriptions for antidepressants and I did help a large number of people to get off them. They wanted a full range of emotions, rather than the blankness that antidepressants provide. They wanted to live. Now they can take some healthy exercise, if they so wish, and maybe they can enjoy it.

07 June 2012 11:01 AM

Doubtless the pearly kings and queens of cockney London will shorten that title to something more manageable. That would be an appropriate recognition of our Sovereign's, and her Consort's, dedication to serve all Her Majesty's subjects.

It is appropriate also that this tower should literally tower over the two houses of parliament. The value of a constitutional monarchy is in the power that it denies to the other two wings of government. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land. The House of Commons is the emblem of the body politic, our elected representatives. The Monarchy, while having no power in itself, protects us from domination by either of those institutions.

The duality of the name of the tower would reflect the equal partnership between men and women in modern society. It would formalise the ultimate triumph of the suffragette movement in the very heart of government.

The tower looks over Parliament Square, which contains three representations of our people.

The statue of Sir Winston Churchill is in homage to a great Prime Minister who saved London and The United Kingdom in war time.

The statue of Nelson Mandela is a tribute to cultural diversity and the triumph of non-violence.

The protest camp represents the rights of individuals and of a free press.

Above all of these, our monarch, accompanied by her constant consort, bonds all loyal subjects together, wanting nothing for herself but the unity of common purpose in all her subjects in her homeland and in her beloved Commonwealth.

Her Majesty the Queen's diamond jubilee will hopefully be followed by a platinum celebration and then by her centenary. The service that she gives to us all is unparalleled.

We are indeed fortunate to be living at this hour. How good it is that we shall be reminded of this by the chimes of Big Ben and the other bells in the clock tower, marking the passage of time while also giving resounding expression to the hard-fought survival of our cherished institutions of State.

Share this article:

DR ROBERT LEFEVER

Dr Robert Lefever established the very first addiction treatment centre in the UK that offered rehabilitation to eating disorder patients, as well as to those with alcohol or drug problems. He was also the first to treat compulsive gambling, nicotine addiction and workaholism.
He identified 'Compulsive Helping', when people do too much for others and too little for themselves, as an addictive behaviour and he pioneered its treatment.
He has worked with over 5,000 addicts and their families in the last 25 years and, until recently, ran a busy private medical practice in South Kensington.
He has written twenty six books on various aspects of depressive illness and addictive behaviour.
He now provides intensive private one-to-one care for individuals and their families.

He has written twenty six books on various aspects of depressive illness and addictive behaviour.

He now uses his considerable experience to provide intensive private one-to-one care for individuals and their families.